Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Require GCC PLL0 DIV clock

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/06/2023 08:54, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-06-27 08:24:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/06/2023 20:53, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-26 20:51:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Not really, binding also defines the list of clocks - their order and
>>>>> specific entries. This changes.
>>>>
>>>> And so it does in "dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Remove unused
>>>> GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK"?
>>>
>>> Never mind: it is the last item so the order of the other items doesn't
>>> change.  The total number of items decreases though, which sounds like
>>> an ABI-break too?
>>
>> How does it break? Old DTS works exactly the same, doesn't it?
> 
> So deleting a new item at the end does not matter.  But what if I respin
> this patch to add the new clock _at the end_, which will then be at the
> same index as the previous GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK?

I think you know the answer, right? What do you want to prove? That two
independent changes can have together negative effect? We know this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof